• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The politics of America is the politics of réssentiment

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Wikipedia provides the following definition for the term:

Ressentiment (French pronunciation: [rəsɑ̃timɑ̃]), in philosophy and psychology, is one of the forms of resentment or hostility. It is the French word for "resentment" (fr. Latin intensive prefix 're', and 'sentir' "to feel"). Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.

Nietzsche, who brought the term into more precise usage, gave a more compelling history of the origins of such feeling in On The Genealogy Of Morals:

The man who, from lack of external enemies and resistances and forcibly confined to the oppressive narrowness and punctiliousness of custom, impatiently lacerated, persecuted, gnawed at, assaulted, and maltreated himself; this animal that rubbed itself raw against the bars of its cage as one tried to "tame" it... this fool, this yearning and desperate prisoner, became the inventor of the "bad conscience.

In sum, réssentiment is the agitation a man feels against those whose social positions are superior to his own. He rankles against privilege, even where it is well-earned; he castigates any hierarchy he does not number in.

And he does this primarily by inventing an imagined oppression. He gives the lash to the hand he wants so badly to crack it over himself.

Two recent examples, one from each end of the political spectrum in America, will suffice to demonstrate this fact.

The Christian Reverend Al Sharpton has pledged to organise a "march for justice" in the case of Trayvon Martin. But what is justice if not law, the antithesis of all marches? Nietzsche anticipates this inversion of "justice":

The most decisive act, however, that the supreme power performs and accomplishes against the predominance of grudges and rancour - it always takes this action when it is strong enough to do so - is the institution of law, the imperative declaration of what countsin general as permitted, as just, in its eyes, and what counts as forbidden, as unjust...

"Just" and "unjust" exist, accordingly, only after the institutions of law... to speak of just or unjust in itself is quite senseless; in itself, of course, no injury, assault, exploitation, destruction can be "unjust," since life operates essentially, that is in its basic functions, through injury, assault, exploration, destruction, and simply cannot be thought of at all without this character.... A legal order thought of as sovereign and universal, not as a means of struggle between power-complexes but as a means of preventing all struggle in general... would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness.
 
The man of réssentiment uses the language of victimhood because he knows no other position in life and, fundamentally, is fit only for just such a position. He universalizes the plight of the individual into the plight of the whole, and wants to enlist the aid of the whole - forcibly, if necessary - in ameliorating his sense of personal injury through an appeal to an abstract Justice.

This is doubtless true of inferior class-racial agitators like Sharpton. It is no less true of 'anti-elitist' right-wing social conservatives.

Consider the particular claim of the Christian soapboxer Rick Santorum on the timely decisions regarding DOMA: "Nine unelected elites" have "overthrown the proper channels of justice" in striking it down.

A more thoroughly disgusting sight is hardly imaginable: a man victimizing himself - and, vicariously, the nation - in order to strike a moral pose.

Disgusting, but hardly surprisingly. Left and Right , black or white, the American wants to be a victim, and will do everything in his power to attain that status..
 
This goes doubly for those at the furthest fringes of the economic-ideological spectrum: right-libertarians who have never seen a reason to crucify themselves that they haven't embraced as well as Occupiers generally incapable of competing on the market.

The entire political process is infused with réssentiment. All sides fancy themselves as victims and none as victimizers. This helps them sleep at night.
 
I understand the premise, but I also think it a bit too focused on the United States as being unique in this aspect.
 
I understand the premise, but I also think it a bit too focused on the United States as being unique in this aspect.

I'd suggest it is uniquely saturated with réssentiment, if not solely responsible for it, because of its lack of experience with anything approximating the true aristocracy of Europe and Asia. All men can be resentful, of course, but the innoculation of aristocratic forms of organization can help blunt its political manifestations. This doesn't always hold good - Nazi Germany, for example - but it's true enough to be a useful rule of thumb.
 
I'd suggest it is uniquely saturated with réssentiment, if not solely responsible for it, because of its lack of experience with anything approximating the true aristocracy of Europe and Asia. All men can be resentful, of course, but the innoculation of aristocratic forms of organization can help blunt its political manifestations. This doesn't always hold good - Nazi Germany, for example - but it's true enough to be a useful rule of thumb.

Perhaps it would be useful to receive some input from the Europeans regarding class clashes or occupation conflicts. An American may perceive incorrectly the politics of another region.
 
Perhaps it would be useful to receive some input from the Europeans regarding class clashes or occupation conflicts. An American may perceive incorrectly the politics of another region.


Class conflict isn't inherently based in réssentiment. Consider the self-selecting, self-organizing nature of the Spanish Syndicalists as against the organized thievery of the Bolsheviks.

There can be political activity, Left and Right, that does not resort to spinning tales about its own persecution to justify itself morally. There can be a constructive politics that assumes its own right to exist solely upon its own merits, and not on the horrible things the other people will unleash upon their respective partisans should the opposition assume power.

Both of these are wholly lacking in America. Our Left and our Right alike are mired in martyr-fantasies.
 
Perhaps it would be useful to receive some input from the Europeans regarding class clashes or occupation conflicts. An American may perceive incorrectly the politics of another region.

Yes, I agree with you, I really doubt that this ressentiment (correctly spelled without an accent on the "e") is special to America. It exists everywhere, and if we're going the route using the definition implicitly applied above (that what you make on the market, you have earnt -- which is a conclusion tied to a particular philosophy/ideology that's not shared by many other philosophies, and as far as I know about him, certainly not by Nietzsche), America is probably still the best place in the world if you are a convinced capitalist and want other people to rather admire you for your earnings than to envy you. Class envy, if we're calling it that way following that market philosophy, is certainly much stronger in Europe (not least because social mobility used to be or still is lower here than in America).

But when I hear of ressentiment (again spelled without an "´" on the "e"), many other kinds of ressentment come to my mind; first of all racial and ethnic ressentiments. It's obvious that although that exists in America, it's not exclusive to America and certainly was much worse in parts of Europe in the past. Basically, the ethnic envy/ressentiment of allegedly successful Jews (especially from the side of not-so-successful Germans and other Europeans; basically carried by the "white trash" of that time), was the worst and most murderous example of ressentiment I can think of. America has other, but IMO lesser demons.

My impression about America, though, is that the American people cannot do without a foreign enemy fitting into their narrative since the 20th century, and interested groups fuel this resentment. Americans apparently can't feel satisfied without constantly reconfirming their national narrative of the good guy battling evil. That made a lot of sense towards Nazism in WW2 and Stalinist communism during the Cold War, but it didn't even take 10 years until you had to inflate the new national boogeyman of islamism. You simply can't be proud of yourself without an antagonist, rewriting the eternal battle of good vs. evil.

I'd say this pathetic bunch of backwards fanatic barbarians adhering to a dying ideology are a very poor substitute for a real challenge on eyelevel. They're nowhere near the threat level of Nazism or Communism and just serve your government as an excuse to control the fears of the people, in order to expand their agendas.
 
Oh, and my guess is that Nietzsche would have approved of self-victimization for the sake of gaining more power and influence, if it was used as a tool to achieve that goal, exploiting the "weakness" of compassion of the masses and the public.
 
Einzige, and everything I wrote above makes me think that you might well adopt a white elitism against blacks, simply because you're white. A true Nietzschean should protect and further his elitist status, no matter who challenges it, right?

And since victimization of blacks leads to more power and influence for their agenda, it's denial of anti-black racism you should choose, like so many (usually right-wing) Americans do.

But I'd say you should better not go down that route, mixing Nietzschean elitism with racial questions. Others tried it before and it didn't work out so well.
 
Since the rich in this country in fact exploit working people, and since they mostly inherit their wealth, the OP's premise is false.

By the way, using Nietzsche as a guide to cultural analysis is pretty dubious, given his easy appropriation by the Nazis and his complete inability to live a normal productive life. The man didn't even know how to ask a girl out for a date.
 
Since the rich in this country in fact exploit working people, and since they mostly inherit their wealth, the OP's premise is false.

By the way, using Nietzsche as a guide to cultural analysis is pretty dubious, given his easy appropriation by the Nazis and his complete inability to live a normal productive life. The man didn't even know how to ask a girl out for a date.

Yeah, I believe compassion and company are very important aspects of the human condition. So Nietzsche is most of all a really poor wiener, although he wrote amazing polemics against blind religious faith and used a really beautiful language.

Basically he was just a misanthrope fed up with all the people around like we all often are, just that he was very intelligent and could express himself more eloquently. Doesn't make it any more mature.
 
Wikipedia provides the following definition for the term:



Nietzsche, who brought the term into more precise usage, gave a more compelling history of the origins of such feeling in On The Genealogy Of Morals:



In sum, réssentiment is the agitation a man feels against those whose social positions are superior to his own. He rankles against privilege, even where it is well-earned; he castigates any hierarchy he does not number in.

And he does this primarily by inventing an imagined oppression. He gives the lash to the hand he wants so badly to crack it over himself.

Two recent examples, one from each end of the political spectrum in America, will suffice to demonstrate this fact.

The Christian Reverend Al Sharpton has pledged to organise a "march for justice" in the case of Trayvon Martin. But what is justice if not law, the antithesis of all marches? Nietzsche anticipates this inversion of "justice":

I was with you until the "what is justice if not law?" part.

But otherwise, it's a pretty accurate description of what motivates a great many people, particularly the right
 
IMO, he's gone a bit too far with the whole "there are no victims" shtick

Should the master really have a bad conscience just because he's in the position to own slaves? ;)


Uhm, yes, he should.

But what am I telling, I just have a German WW2 neurosis. ;)
 
Should the master really have a bad conscience just because he's in the position to own slaves? ;)


Uhm, yes, he should.

It's not Idi Amins' fault that he was blessed with the power to eat his opponents.

That's just how it is in the jungle we call civilization :shrug:
 
It's not Idi Amins' fault that he was blessed with the power to eat his opponents.

That's just how it is in the jungle we call civilization :shrug:

We're obsessed with a kind of morals that cares for the weak, poor and submissive.

And hell yeah, I feel very free and happy about that! :D
 
Empathy doesn't exist in nature. It's an invention of the devil

Sorry, I'm missing context. So I don't know if you're being serious or joking ... nor do I know which philosophy you follow, so it's really hard for me to respond appropriately. ;)
 
Sorry, I'm missing context. So I don't know if you're being serious or joking ... nor do I know which philosophy you follow, so it's really hard for me to respond appropriately. ;)

I understand. My humor can be quite dry and sarcastic at times.

 
.......and who's more resentful than a white guy seeing a successful black man?
In their minds ...isn't his success (the black guy) almost always because the government took away their (whites) money and gave it to them (the blacks)?

Look at the black athletes ...look how quickly they are ...thuger-zed....when they are successful and confident.

Why are whites so furious when they see the growing power of the Chinese for example ....you think there's some resentment there? The Chinese are the smartest people on the planet with a hard working culture....why is their success always viewed as if they stole it?
I think I agree with the underlying premise of this post.
 
.......and who's more resentful than a white guy seeing a successful black man?
In their minds ...isn't his success (the black guy) almost always because the government took away their (whites) money and gave it to them (the blacks)?

Look at the black athletes ...look how quickly they are ...thuger-zed....when they are successful and confident.

Why are whites so furious when they see the growing power of the Chinese for example ....you think there's some resentment there? The Chinese are the smartest people on the planet with a hard working culture....why is their success always viewed as if they stole it?
I think I agree with the underlying premise of this post.

Yeah, the Chinese are pretty efficient.

And they're discovering the benefits of nationalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom